Jesse Freeman v. Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association

Posted on August 9, 2024 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	24F-H035-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2024-08-09
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge determined that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof required to show the Association violated the purported Bylaws amendment, and therefore, the petition was denied.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Jesse Freeman	Counsel	—
Respondent	Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association	Counsel	Augustus H. Shaw IV, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article II, Section 8, as amended October 18, 2000

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge determined that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof required to show the Association violated the purported Bylaws amendment, and therefore, the petition was denied.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the validity or implementation of the purported Bylaws amendment, and the language of the amendment itself was found not to be compulsory in requiring a subsequent meeting.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged failure to hold a second and subsequent meeting of the membership with a diminished quorum.

Petitioner alleged the Association violated its Bylaws by failing to hold a second meeting with a diminished 15% quorum after failing to meet the initial 25% quorum at the Annual Meeting on January 16, 2024, despite a motion and second being made to adjourn and reset the meeting.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(1)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Bylaws, Quorum, Annual Meeting, Burden of Proof, Invalid Document, Continuance

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(1)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1802(4)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 16, Article 1
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Related election workflow tool

Many HOA election disputes start with preventable workflow problems: unclear ballot language, separate-vote issues, quorum tracking, paper/online reconciliation, proxy handling, or incomplete records. HOABallot is a separate platform built to document the voting workflow from notice through certification.

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163387.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:35 (48.4 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163395.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:40 (7.2 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165696.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:43 (49.1 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165699.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:46 (7.3 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179128.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:50 (53.7 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179136.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:53 (7.6 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1209016.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:21:57 (146.3 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163387.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:04 (48.4 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1163395.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:08 (7.2 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165696.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:11 (49.1 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1165699.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:13 (7.3 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179128.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:15 (53.7 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1179136.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:19 (7.6 KB)

24F-H035-REL Decision – 1209016.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:06:23 (146.3 KB)

This summary details the hearing held before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in the matter of *Jesse Freeman, Petitioner, vs. Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association, Respondent*, Case No. 24F-H035-REL. The hearing was presided over by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark on July 24, 2024, concerning an HOA dispute.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The core issue was whether the Respondent, Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association (the Association), failed to comply with Article II, Section 8 of its Bylaws, as purportedly amended on October 18, 2000, by refusing to hold a subsequent membership meeting with a diminished quorum.

The dispute arose after the Annual Meeting on January 16, 2024, failed to reach the required 25% quorum (only 89 votes were present, short of the 126 needed). Petitioner Jesse Freeman alleged that when quorum failed, the membership made and seconded a motion to adjourn and reconvene the meeting 60 days later with a reduced quorum requirement of 15% (76 votes), but the Association's Board President and attorney abruptly denied the motion and ended the meeting. Petitioner sought an Order compelling the Association to hold a meeting with the 15% diminished quorum requirement.

Key Arguments

Petitioner’s Case:

Petitioner Freeman, a property owner and former board member, argued that the amendment decreasing the quorum requirement for subsequent meetings to 15% was valid, asserting that its validity was established because it was dated October 18, 2000, and archived on the Association’s public website (Exhibit Y). Petitioner contended that the bylaw language was "compulsory" and mandated that the membership be allowed to adjourn and reconvene the meeting under the diminished quorum rule.

Respondent’s Case:

Respondent’s counsel and witnesses (Community Manager Brandon Moore and former Board President Chris Redden) presented two main arguments.

Invalidity: The amendment was never formally adopted, ratified, or implemented by the Association. Witnesses testified that there were no ballots, meeting minutes, signatures, or stamps in the Association's records to substantiate the amendment’s validity. Furthermore, Petitioner conceded that during his two-year tenure on the Board (2017-2018), the Board never utilized the purported amendment, despite often failing to meet quorum, supporting the argument that the document was either a failed proposal or unknown.
Non-Compulsory Language: Even if the amendment were valid, its language is not mandatory. The amendment states that the second meeting "shall require fifteen percent quorum". Respondent argued that this language simply sets the quorum requirement *if* a second meeting is held; it does not contain binding words (such as "shall" or "must" directed at the Association) that compel the Board to *call* a second meeting.

Outcome and Legal Conclusion

The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof—that the contention was "more probably true than not".

The ALJ issued an Order denying the Petitioner's petition.

The legal conclusions supporting the denial were:

Lack of Corroboration: Petitioner failed to present sufficient credible evidence that the Association had voted on, ratified, or implemented the amendment to Bylaw Article II, Section 8. The document’s mere presence on the Association’s website was insufficient to establish validity.
Non-Compulsory Language: The ALJ concluded that the language of the purported amendment was not compulsory. It does not contain verbiage inherently binding, such as "shall" or "must," that would require the Respondent to hold a second meeting.

The ALJ Decision was issued on August 09, 2024.

Questions

Question

If a document appears on the HOA's website, is it automatically considered a valid governing document?

Short Answer

No. The presence of a document on a website does not prove it was voted on or adopted.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found that simply finding a document on the association's website is insufficient to prove it is a valid, adopted amendment. There must be evidence that members participated in a vote or that the association officially adopted it.

Alj Quote

The document’s presence on the Association’s website does not establish or tend to suggest that members participated in a vote on or about October 18, 2000, or that the Association adopted an amendment to Bylaw Article II Section 8 thereafter.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 7

Topic Tags

governing documents
website
validity

Question

What specific features does a bylaw amendment need to be considered valid and enforceable?

Short Answer

It generally requires signatures, stamps, seals, or filing receipts to prove it isn't just a draft.

Detailed Answer

To be considered a valid governing document rather than a failed proposal or draft, the document should ideally have an embossed stamp, seal, or at least one signature indicating it was finalized and adopted.

Alj Quote

Moreover, the document itself does not have an embossed stamp or seal, or reflect at least one (1) signature that would reasonably suggest it was indeed a valid governing document, rather than a failed proposal or draft, which is supported by the fact that a filing receipt was not affixed.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 7

Topic Tags

governing documents
signatures
enforceability

Question

If the bylaws mention a reduced quorum for a 'second meeting', is the HOA required to hold that second meeting?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the language doesn't explicitly say the HOA 'must' hold the meeting, it may be optional.

Detailed Answer

Even if a bylaw provision states that a second meeting 'shall require' a lower quorum, this does not automatically compel the HOA to hold that meeting. Unless words like 'shall' or 'must' apply specifically to the act of holding the meeting itself, the HOA may not be required to schedule it.

Alj Quote

There are no accompanying words that are inherently binding such as shall or must that would require Respondent to hold a second meeting based on the aforementioned verbiage used.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 8

Topic Tags

meetings
quorum
bylaw interpretation

Question

Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the rules?

Short Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition is responsible for proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA committed the alleged violation.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory violation.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law No. 3

Topic Tags

burden of proof
legal standards
procedure

Question

Does it matter if the HOA hasn't followed a specific rule for many years?

Short Answer

Yes. Long-term non-enforcement or lack of awareness by the board can be evidence that the rule was never validly adopted.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ considered the fact that the petitioner and board members were unaware of the amendment for years, and had failed to use it during previous quorum failures, as evidence weighing against the document's validity.

Alj Quote

Petitioner conceded that during his tenure on the Board and thereafter he was unaware of the purported amendment’s existence, notwithstanding several instances over a number of years where voting members failed to meet quorum requirements and did not utilize the provisions of the alleged amendment.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 7

Topic Tags

past practice
board conduct
validity

Question

What standard of proof is used in these HOA hearings?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The standard is 'preponderance of the evidence,' which means showing that a contention is more probably true than not. It is based on the convincing force of the evidence rather than just the number of witnesses.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law No. 4

Topic Tags

legal standards
evidence

Case

Docket No: 24F-H035-REL
Case Title: Jesse Freeman v. Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association
Decision Date: 2024-08-09
Alj Name: Jenna Clark
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

If a document appears on the HOA's website, is it automatically considered a valid governing document?

Short Answer

No. The presence of a document on a website does not prove it was voted on or adopted.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 7

Topic Tags

governing documents
website
validity

Question

What specific features does a bylaw amendment need to be considered valid and enforceable?

Short Answer

It generally requires signatures, stamps, seals, or filing receipts to prove it isn't just a draft.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 7

Topic Tags

governing documents
signatures
enforceability

Question

If the bylaws mention a reduced quorum for a 'second meeting', is the HOA required to hold that second meeting?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the language doesn't explicitly say the HOA 'must' hold the meeting, it may be optional.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

There are no accompanying words that are inherently binding such as shall or must that would require Respondent to hold a second meeting based on the aforementioned verbiage used.

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 8

Topic Tags

meetings
quorum
bylaw interpretation

Question

Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the rules?

Short Answer

The petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition is responsible for proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA committed the alleged violation.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory violation.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law No. 3

Topic Tags

burden of proof
legal standards
procedure

Question

Does it matter if the HOA hasn't followed a specific rule for many years?

Short Answer

Yes. Long-term non-enforcement or lack of awareness by the board can be evidence that the rule was never validly adopted.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Findings of Fact No. 7

Topic Tags

past practice
board conduct
validity

Question

What standard of proof is used in these HOA hearings?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Conclusions of Law No. 4

Topic Tags

legal standards
evidence

Case

Docket No: 24F-H035-REL
Case Title: Jesse Freeman v. Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association
Decision Date: 2024-08-09
Alj Name: Jenna Clark
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Jesse Freeman (petitioner)
Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association Member
Spelling varies as 'Jesse Freemen' in some sources; also served as Treasurer on the Board 2017-2018.
Nicholas Belisi (witness)
Potential witness for Petitioner; seconded the motion to adjourn and reconvene the meeting.

Respondent Side

Augustus H. Shaw IV (HOA attorney)
Shaw & Lines, LLC
Counsel for Respondent Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association.
Brandon David Moore (senior community manager/witness)
Brown Property Management
Senior Community Manager for Respondent Millett Ranch HOA, testified as a witness.
Christopher Redden (Board President/witness)
Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association
Former Board President (9 years) and Board Member (13-14 years), testified as a witness.
Mark Saul (HOA attorney)
Millett Ranch Homeowners’ Association
Identified by Petitioner as the association's attorney who abruptly ended the January 16, 2024 meeting.

Neutral Parties

Jenna Clark (ALJ)
OAH
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
ADRE
vnunez (ADRE staff (Recipient))
ADRE
Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
djones (ADRE staff (Recipient))
ADRE
Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
labril (ADRE staff (Recipient))
ADRE
Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
mneat (ADRE staff (Recipient))
ADRE
Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
akowaleski (ADRE staff (Recipient))
ADRE
Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
gosborn (ADRE staff (Recipient))
ADRE
Received transmission of ALJ Decision/Minute Entries.
OAH Staff (OAH Staff)
OAH
Transmitted documents/Final Order.

Other Participants

Rebecca Cook-Klaus (observer)
Observed the hearing.
Millie Lton (unknown)
Petitioner received a copy of the bylaws amendment from this person in May 2023.

Jeffrey Connell & Corey Cox v. Casa Del Monte, INC.

Posted on May 20, 2024 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	24F-H024-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2024-05-20
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners' petition, concluding they failed to meet their burden of proving a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248 regarding the May 19, 2023, Executive Board Meeting.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Jeffrey Connell & Corey Cox	Counsel	Ross Meyer, Esq.
Respondent	Casa Del Monte, Inc.	Counsel	Solomon Krotzer, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the Petitioners' petition, concluding they failed to meet their burden of proving a violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248 regarding the May 19, 2023, Executive Board Meeting.

Why this result: Petitioners failed to prove the statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence, as the Executive Session was deemed appropriate for receiving legal advice or conducting discussion related thereto, which falls under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1).

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of open meeting law concerning Executive Board Meeting on May 19, 2023

Petitioners alleged the Association violated ARS § 33-1248 by improperly conducting business (Code of Conduct review and vote on minutes) in a closed Executive Session on May 19, 2023, and by failing to provide 48-hour notice.

Orders: Petitioners' petition was denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Open Meeting Law, Executive Session, Legal Advice Exception, Code of Conduct, Burden of Proof, Condominium Association Statute, Filing Fee

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.

Related election workflow tool

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1138580.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:16:59 (54.3 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1144884.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:17:06 (50.1 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1146526.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:17:17 (61.9 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1161533.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:17:22 (48.9 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1179547.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:17:27 (132.9 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1138580.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:38 (54.3 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1144884.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:41 (50.1 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1146526.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:44 (61.9 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1161533.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:47 (48.9 KB)

24F-H024-REL Decision – 1179547.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:03:52 (132.9 KB)

This matter, heard before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark in the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), concerned a dispute between Jeffrey Connell and Corey Cox (Petitioners) and the homeowners' association, Casa Del Monte, Inc. (Respondent).

Key Facts and Issues:

The core issue referred for the evidentiary hearing was whether the Association "repeatedly violated" Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1248 (the condominium open meeting law) at an Executive Board Meeting on May 19, 2023. Petitioners, newly elected board members, alleged two specific violations: 1) failing to provide 48-hour notice of the meeting, and 2) voting on a topic in closed session.

The central factual dispute revolved around the closed session discussion of a proposed Code of Conduct. Petitioners asserted that the discussion was an attempt to coerce them into signing the Code outside of an open meeting and that Counsel for the Association did not offer genuine legal advice regarding the Code of Conduct. Petitioners ran on a platform of transparency and argued the Code, a non-confidential general document, should not have been discussed in a closed session.

Respondent maintained that the Executive Session was proper because its primary purpose was receiving legal advice from the Association’s general counsel, Curtis Ekmark, which is permitted under ARS § 33-1248(A)(1). The counsel provided guidance regarding board conduct, fiduciary responsibilities, and the legal implications of adopting the Code, even though the Code itself was a draft and ultimately rejected by the Board. Testimony confirmed the Code was "strongly encouraged" by counsel.

Legal Points and Outcome:

The ALJ noted that ARS § 33-1248(A)(1) permits closing a meeting portion only if it is limited to the consideration of "legal advice from an attorney for the board or the association". Legal advice is defined as "guidance given by lawyers to their clients".

Crucially, the ALJ narrowed the scope of the decision: because Petitioners only paid for the adjudication of one issue, the Tribunal would not address the tangential issue of whether the Association properly provided 48-hour notice of the meeting.

The Petitioners bore the burden of proving the alleged statutory violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The ALJ concluded that Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof.

The ALJ found that the Board had advanced notice of the session to discuss the Code of Conduct and had the opportunity to ask questions, noting that incumbent members had already signed the document. The ALJ held that the quantity or quality of the legal advice given was irrelevant. Since the record reflected that the meeting's closure was not solely for non-legal purposes (like reviewing non-privileged documents from a public website), the motion to enter Executive Session based on receiving legal advice was found permissible.

The Final Order dictated that Petitioners' petition was denied. The hearing concluded with a stipulation to submit written closing briefs by April 29, 2024 (after an extension was granted).

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law in a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA committed the alleged violation. This means showing that the claim is more likely true than not.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory violation.

Legal Basis

Preponderance of the Evidence

Topic Tags

burden of proof
legal standards
procedure

Question

Can the HOA board go into a closed executive session to get legal advice?

Short Answer

Yes, the board may close a meeting to receive legal advice from the association's attorney.

Detailed Answer

State statute explicitly allows portions of meetings to be closed if limited to consideration of legal advice from an attorney for the board or association. Legal advice is defined broadly as guidance given by lawyers to their clients.

Alj Quote

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1248(A)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that 'Any portion of a meeting may be closed only if that portion of the meeting is limited to consideration of one or more of the following: (1) legal advice from an attorney for the board or the association.'

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(1)

Topic Tags

executive session
legal advice
open meeting laws

Question

If I file a petition for one specific violation, can I bring up other issues during the hearing?

Short Answer

No, the tribunal will generally only address the specific issue paid for in the petition.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ may refuse to address tangential issues or additional complaints raised during the hearing if the petitioner only paid the filing fee for the adjudication of a single specific issue.

Alj Quote

Because Petitioners only paid for the adjudication of one (1) issue, this Tribunal may not address all of the tangential issues Petitioners raised during the presentation of their case or closing arguments, including whether the Association properly provided notice of its May 19, 2023, Board Meeting.

Legal Basis

Procedural Scope

Topic Tags

hearing procedure
filing fees
scope of hearing

Question

Does draft language stating a policy 'has been approved' prove the board secretly voted on it?

Short Answer

No, the tense used in a draft document is considered irrelevant if the document was not actually adopted.

Detailed Answer

Even if a proposed document uses language like 'The Board… has approved,' this is considered a 'red herring' if the evidence shows the document was merely a proposal that board members were advised to sign but ultimately declined.

Alj Quote

The fact that language in the proposal used current language, rather than future tense, is a Red Herring argument and irrelevant.

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

evidence
board documents
voting

Question

Is it a violation for the board to discuss public materials (like a website printout) in executive session?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, provided that discussing those materials was not the sole purpose of the closed session.

Detailed Answer

While discussing public materials alone is technically not legal advice, it does not invalidate an executive session if the session also included legitimate purposes, such as receiving counsel's advice on other matters.

Alj Quote

While it is accurate that going into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing reading materials printed from a public website regarding revision of Association’s governing documents is not technically legal advice, as it is inherently unprivileged documentation, this record reflects that this was not the sole purpose of closing the Board Meeting from the public.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248

Topic Tags

executive session
public records
violations

Question

What is the standard of proof required to win an HOA dispute case?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

This standard requires proof that convinces the judge that the claim is 'more probably true than not.' It is based on the convincing force and weight of the evidence, not just the number of witnesses.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Standard of Proof

Topic Tags

legal standards
evidence

Question

Can the board discuss a Code of Conduct in executive session?

Short Answer

Yes, if the discussion involves receiving legal advice or guidance from the association's attorney.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found no violation when the board went into executive session to discuss a Code of Conduct because the board members were receiving information, asking questions, and being advised by counsel regarding the document.

Alj Quote

The crux of the underlying issue is that newly elected Board Members, Petitioners, were provided with information regarding the Code of Conduct, the opportunity to discuss and ask questions privately, and advised to sign by Counsel for the Association; which they declined as was their right.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(1)

Topic Tags

code of conduct
executive session
board meetings

Case

Docket No: 24F-H024-REL
Case Title: Jeffrey Connell & Corey Cox v. Casa Del Monte, Inc.
Decision Date: 2024-05-20
Alj Name: Jenna Clark
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the law in a hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA committed the alleged violation. This means showing that the claim is more likely true than not.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the alleged statutory violation.

Legal Basis

Preponderance of the Evidence

Topic Tags

burden of proof
legal standards
procedure

Question

Can the HOA board go into a closed executive session to get legal advice?

Short Answer

Yes, the board may close a meeting to receive legal advice from the association's attorney.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(1)

Topic Tags

executive session
legal advice
open meeting laws

Question

If I file a petition for one specific violation, can I bring up other issues during the hearing?

Short Answer

No, the tribunal will generally only address the specific issue paid for in the petition.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ may refuse to address tangential issues or additional complaints raised during the hearing if the petitioner only paid the filing fee for the adjudication of a single specific issue.

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Procedural Scope

Topic Tags

hearing procedure
filing fees
scope of hearing

Question

Does draft language stating a policy 'has been approved' prove the board secretly voted on it?

Short Answer

No, the tense used in a draft document is considered irrelevant if the document was not actually adopted.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

The fact that language in the proposal used current language, rather than future tense, is a Red Herring argument and irrelevant.

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

evidence
board documents
voting

Question

Is it a violation for the board to discuss public materials (like a website printout) in executive session?

Short Answer

Not necessarily, provided that discussing those materials was not the sole purpose of the closed session.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248

Topic Tags

executive session
public records
violations

Question

What is the standard of proof required to win an HOA dispute case?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Standard of Proof

Topic Tags

legal standards
evidence

Question

Can the board discuss a Code of Conduct in executive session?

Short Answer

Yes, if the discussion involves receiving legal advice or guidance from the association's attorney.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1248(A)(1)

Topic Tags

code of conduct
executive session
board meetings

Case

Docket No: 24F-H024-REL
Case Title: Jeffrey Connell & Corey Cox v. Casa Del Monte, Inc.
Decision Date: 2024-05-20
Alj Name: Jenna Clark
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Jeffrey Connell (petitioner)
Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA
Also served as a board member.
Corey Cox (petitioner)
Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA
Also served as a board member.
Ross Meyer (attorney)
Meyer & Partners, PLLC; Enara Law PLLC
Counsel for Petitioners.
Jonathan Dessaules (witness)
The Sol Law Group
Testified as a subject matter expert/HOA attorney.
Matthew Elias (attorney)
Enara Law PLLC
Counsel for Petitioners; listed in final decision transmittal.

Respondent Side

Lori N. Brown (attorney)
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukahani, LLP
Counsel for Respondent.
Benjamin Bednarek (attorney)
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukahani, LLP
Counsel for Respondent.
Curtis Ekmark (HOA attorney)
Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA
Association Corporate Counsel/General Counsel.
Solomon Krotzer (attorney)
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukahani, LLP
Counsel for Respondent; appeared at hearing (referred to as 'Paulo' once).
Mary Lou Ehmann (property manager)
Pride Management
Former Community Manager for Casa Del Monte; provided testimony.
Jonathan Ryder (board president)
Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA
Also referred to as John Ryder.
Jean Yen (board member)
Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA
Also referred to as Jeannie Yen; Treasurer.
Bill McMichael (board member)
Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA
Vice President.
Jim Burton (board member)
Casa Del Monte, Inc. HOA
Secretary.

Neutral Parties

Jenna Clark (ALJ)
OAH
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
ADRE
AHansen (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of official case transmission.
vnunez (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of official case transmission.
djones (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of official case transmission.
labril (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of official case transmission.
kvanfredenberg (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of official case transmission.

SAMEUL T. PAPARAZZO v. CORONADO RANCH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Posted on November 22, 2023 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	24F-H011-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2023-11-22
Administrative Law Judge	Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof to show the Respondent violated the open meeting statute (A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)). The Board provided open meetings where the management contract discussions and votes occurred, including allowing the Petitioner and other homeowners to comment.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Samuel T. Paparazzo	Counsel	—
Respondent	Coronado Ranch Community Association	Counsel	Ashley Turner

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof to show the Respondent violated the open meeting statute (A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)). The Board provided open meetings where the management contract discussions and votes occurred, including allowing the Petitioner and other homeowners to comment.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain the burden of proof to establish a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by a preponderance of the evidence.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of the open meeting statute regarding entering into a contract with a new Community Association Management Company.

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1804(A) by canceling the existing community management contract and entering a contract with a new company (Haywood Realty & Investment, Inc.) without allowing open discussion, member comment, motion, and a vote regarding the change and the acquisition of Requests for Proposals (RFPs).

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1804(A)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Open Meetings, Management Contract, Request for Proposals, Burden of Proof

Additional Citations:

ARS 33-1804(A)

Related election workflow tool

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H011-REL Decision – 1116173.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:15:21 (111.6 KB)

24F-H011-REL Decision – 1116173.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:52 (111.6 KB)

This summary pertains to the hearing in the matter of Samuel T. Paparazzo versus Coronado Ranch Community Association (Docket No. 24F-H011-REL), held on November 13, 2023.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The Petitioner, Samuel T. Paparazzo, alleged that the Coronado Ranch Community Association (Respondent) violated Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) § 33-1804(A)—the planned community open meetings statute—by "entering into a contract with a new Community Association Management Company". Specifically, the Petitioner argued that the Board failed to allow for open discussion and member comment, and did not properly put forth a motion and vote, both when obtaining requests for proposals (RFPs) and when entering into the new contract with Haywood Realty & Investment, Inc. on August 10, 2023. The Petitioner testified that the approved meeting minutes did not reflect a motion and vote for either action.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) noted that the burden of proof rested upon the Petitioner to establish the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner, who attended all board meetings, asserted that there was no formal discussion, motion, or vote recorded for the key steps (RFPs and contract execution) required under ARS § 33-1804(A). He conceded that he was given an opportunity to speak at the crucial August 2023 meeting, but claimed that the only motion put forward and voted upon was to terminate the previous manager (RCP), not to hire Haywood.

Respondent's Argument: Ashley Turner, counsel for the Association, argued that the Association did not violate the statute. Kim Jackson, Board Treasurer, testified that management issues arose due to financial errors (including a $23,000 double payment). She testified that RFPs were obtained by individual board members, discussed, and made available to the community at the open November 2022 meeting and subsequent meetings.

Ms. Jackson credibly testified that the final decision occurred at the August 2023 open meeting after a "lengthy" discussion. At this meeting, both the termination of the old management company and the hiring of Haywood were discussed. The Petitioner was given 10 minutes to speak virtually. Ms. Jackson testified that a unanimous vote was taken to terminate the previous contract and hire Haywood, and that the termination notice detailing the new hiring was read aloud to attendees. She clarified that the lack of reference to the hiring motion in the August minutes was due to the secretary's inadvertent omission.

Legal Points and Outcome

The core legal contention revolved around whether the Association adhered to the requirement that formal action be taken only after discussion and member comment during an open meeting. The ALJ found the testimony of Ms. Jackson regarding the open discussion, member comments (including the Petitioner’s 10 minutes), and the unanimous vote at the August 2023 meeting to be credible.

The ALJ concluded that the credible evidence established that the issues regarding termination, RFPs, and entering into the new contract were discussed and voted on after a motion and member comment.

The Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARS § 33-1804(A). Consequently, the Petition was dismissed.

Select all sources

No emoji found

24F-H011-REL

2 sources

These sources document an administrative hearing regarding a dispute between Samuel T. Paparazzo and the Coronado Ranch Community Association over alleged open meeting violations. The petitioner contended that the board hired a new management company without proper public discussion, member input, or a formal vote as required by Arizona law. In response, the board treasurer testified that the transition was discussed across multiple open sessions and that the final decision was made during a meeting where the petitioner himself provided verbal testimony. Evidence showed that while the official meeting minutes were occasionally incomplete, the board had made significant efforts to inform homeowners through Facebook and email. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the association provided sufficient opportunity for member participation before executing the new contract.

What was the final outcome of the HOA dispute hearing?

How did the treasurer defend the board’s decision-making process?

Explain the member’s specific complaints about the new contract.

Thursday, February 12

Save to note

Today • 3:35 PM

Video Overview

Mind Map

Reports

Flashcards

Quiz

Infographic

Slide Deck

Data Table

Select all sources

No emoji found

24F-H011-REL

2 sources

What was the final outcome of the HOA dispute hearing?

How did the treasurer defend the board’s decision-making process?

Explain the member’s specific complaints about the new contract.

Thursday, February 12

Save to note

Today • 3:35 PM

Video Overview

Mind Map

Reports

Flashcards

Quiz

Infographic

Slide Deck

Data Table

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Samuel T. Paparazzo (petitioner)
Also appeared as Samuel Gene Everzo; testified on his own behalf.

Respondent Side

Ashley Turner (HOA attorney)
Goodman Law Group
Counsel for Coronado Ranch Community Association.
Kimberly Jackson (board member/treasurer)
Coronado Ranch Community Association Board
Appeared as a witness; sometimes referred to as Jim Jackson.
Sheree (board member)
Coronado Ranch Community Association Board
Director who obtained RFPs.
Michelle (board member)
Coronado Ranch Community Association Board
Director who obtained RFPs.
Cathy / Cassie (board member/secretary)
Coronado Ranch Community Association Board
Board member who read documents aloud; secretary who inadvertently left information off minutes.

Neutral Parties

Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Also identified as Sandra Vanella.
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
A. Hansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of decision transmission.
V. Nunez (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of decision transmission.
D. Jones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of decision transmission.
L. Abril (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of decision transmission.

Other Participants

Erica Martinson (attorney)
prison law
Tony Rosetti (lawist)
Spelled R O SS KTI.
Miss Lee (potential witness)
Did not testify.
Rob Bishop (community manager)
Renaissance Community Partners
Son of owner of previous management company; facilitated virtual mic for Petitioner.
Tamara Lens (community assistant)
Renaissance Community Partners
Sent official meeting notice email.
Linda Palmer (homeowner)
Coronado Ranch Community Association member
Commented at the meeting.

Thomas P Hommrich v. The Lakewood Community Association

Posted on November 9, 2023 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	24F-H009-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2023-11-09
Administrative Law Judge	Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Association violated CC&Rs Section 2.1 by adopting the Residential Parking Policy. The Policy was deemed a valid clarification authorized by existing CC&R provisions (4.2(t) and 5.3).
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Thomas P. Hommrich	Counsel	—
Respondent	The Lakewood Community Association	Counsel	Quinten Cupps, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Section 2.1 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements (CC&Rs)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petitioner's petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Association violated CC&Rs Section 2.1 by adopting the Residential Parking Policy. The Policy was deemed a valid clarification authorized by existing CC&R provisions (4.2(t) and 5.3).

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish a violation of the governing documents.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&Rs Section 2.1 regarding adoption of Residential Parking Policy

Petitioner alleged that the Association's adoption of the Residential Parking Policy violated CC&Rs Section 2.1 because the policy used the unauthorized term 'Rules and Regulations' rather than 'restrictions,' thereby attempting to amend the CC&Rs without following the proper process, particularly concerning the use of government-owned property.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&Rs, Parking Policy, Rules vs Restrictions, Burden of Proof, Planned Community

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H009-REL Decision – 1101544.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T10:04:05 (47.0 KB)

24F-H009-REL Decision – 1111460.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-26T10:04:11 (102.6 KB)

24F-H009-REL Decision – 1101544.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:45 (47.0 KB)

24F-H009-REL Decision – 1111460.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:01:48 (102.6 KB)

This concise summary details the administrative legal hearing in the matter of Thomas P. Hommrich v The Lakewood Community Association (No. 24F-H009-REL), which convened on October 24, 2023.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The Petitioner, Thomas P. Hommrich, alleged that the Respondent, The Lakewood Community Association, violated Section 2.1 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements (CC&Rs) by adopting the Residential Parking Policy (Parking Policy). Section 2.1 governs public property (such as streets), stating that while such property is not generally subject to the Declaration, restrictions imposed upon owners regarding its use "shall be applicable at all times".

The specific dispute centered on the Association's authority to enforce on-street parking restrictions on government-owned property without formally amending the CC&Rs. Petitioner’s Request for Partial Summary Judgment regarding the policy was denied prior to the hearing.

Key Arguments

Petitioner's Argument:

Petitioner Hommrich asserted that the Parking Policy was invalid because it referred to itself as a set of "Rules and Regulations". He argued that under the CC&Rs (specifically referencing Section 5.3 and 12.2), "Rules and Regulations" (or "Association Rules") are only authorized to govern common areas. Therefore, for the Association to legally regulate parking on public streets, the restriction must be contained within a formal amendment to the Declaration, following a strict amendment process. By using "rules and regulations" instead of "restrictions," the Association unlawfully usurped the authority required to govern non-common property.

Respondent's Argument:

The Association contended that the Parking Policy was validly adopted under the authority granted in multiple CC&R sections, particularly Section 4.2(t) and Section 12.2. Section 4.2(t) grants the authority to adopt "additional parking rules and restrictions". Furthermore, Section 12.2 dictates that rules adopted by the Board shall have the "same force and effect as if they were set forth in this declaration," negating the necessity for an amendment to the CC&Rs to adopt every new rule. The Association argued the policy merely clarified existing use restrictions found in 4.2(t), and that the semantic difference emphasized by the Petitioner was irrelevant.

Legal Points and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the alleged violation of Section 2.1 by a preponderance of the evidence.

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner's assertion that the semantic difference between "rules and regulations" and "rules and restrictions" was critical was irrelevant in determining the Association's authority under Section 2.1. The Association demonstrated that the Parking Policy was passed by a majority vote in compliance with Section 5.3 and that the policy did not subvert Section 4.2(t), but rather further clarified prohibited on-street parking.

The Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof.

Final Decision:

The ALJ issued an Order dismissing Petitioner’s petition.

Questions

Question

Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over disputes regarding HOA document violations?

Short Answer

Yes, owners or associations may petition the department for hearings concerning violations of community documents.

Detailed Answer

The Department is authorized by statute to receive petitions regarding disputes between owners and associations, specifically concerning violations of community documents or statutes regulating planned communities.

Alj Quote

The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities as long as the petitioner has filed a petition with the department and paid a filing fee as outlined in ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq.

Topic Tags

jurisdiction
dispute resolution

Question

Can an HOA enforce restrictions on public streets or government-owned property within the community?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs explicitly state that restrictions apply to owners concerning the use of such property.

Detailed Answer

Even if property is dedicated to the public, the CC&Rs can impose restrictions on owners and residents regarding their use of that property, which remain applicable at all times.

Alj Quote

Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs in pertinent part states, 'property within Lakewood which is not part of a Lot or Parcel and which is owned by or dedicated to the public or governmental entity shall not be subject to this Declaration although restrictions imposed in this Declaration upon the Owners and Residents concerning the use and maintenance of such property shall be applicable at all times.'

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 2.1

Topic Tags

parking
public streets
authority

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence; it is not the HOA's initial burden to disprove the claim.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

procedural
burden of proof

Question

What standard of evidence is used to decide HOA disputes?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

This standard requires evidence that convinces the judge that the claim is more probably true than not.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)

Topic Tags

evidence
legal standard

Question

Can an HOA Board pass a parking policy without amending the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs grant the Board the authority to adopt rules and regulations.

Detailed Answer

If the CC&Rs allow the Board to adopt reasonable rules by majority vote, a policy passed in compliance with that section is valid, provided it clarifies rather than subverts the existing CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

It was undisputed Respondent passed the Parking Policy by majority vote in compliance with Section 5.3. … The Parking Policy did not subvert Section 4.2(t) nor did it contradict said policy, rather it further clarified prohibited on-street parking.

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 5.3

Topic Tags

board authority
rules vs amendments

Question

Does the specific terminology 'rules' vs. 'restrictions' invalidate a policy?

Short Answer

Generally, no. Semantic differences are often considered irrelevant if the authority to regulate exists.

Detailed Answer

Arguments relying on semantic distinctions between 'rules and regulations' and 'restrictions' may fail if the Board has the clear authority to regulate the activity (e.g., parking) under the CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

Petitioner’s assertion that the semantic difference between the terms 'rules and regulations' and 'rules and restrictions' is irrelevant in determining whether Respondent had the authority under Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs to clarify Section 4.2(t).

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

legal interpretation
semantics

Question

What happens if a homeowner fails to meet the burden of proof?

Short Answer

The petition will be dismissed.

Detailed Answer

If the evidence presented is insufficient to establish that the HOA violated its documents, the Administrative Law Judge must dismiss the case.

Alj Quote

The undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that, because Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof that Respondent committed the alleged violation, his petition must be dismissed.

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

outcome
dismissal

Question

How long does a party have to request a rehearing after an ALJ decision?

Short Answer

30 days.

Detailed Answer

A request for rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.

Alj Quote

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, a request for rehearing in this matter must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of this Order upon the parties.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Topic Tags

appeal
deadlines

Case

Docket No: 24F-H009-REL
Case Title: Thomas P. Hommrich v The Lakewood Community Association
Decision Date: 2023-11-09
Alj Name: Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over disputes regarding HOA document violations?

Short Answer

Yes, owners or associations may petition the department for hearings concerning violations of community documents.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102 and 32-2199 et seq.

Topic Tags

jurisdiction
dispute resolution

Question

Can an HOA enforce restrictions on public streets or government-owned property within the community?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs explicitly state that restrictions apply to owners concerning the use of such property.

Detailed Answer

Even if property is dedicated to the public, the CC&Rs can impose restrictions on owners and residents regarding their use of that property, which remain applicable at all times.

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 2.1

Topic Tags

parking
public streets
authority

Question

Who has the burden of proof in a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

The Petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence; it is not the HOA's initial burden to disprove the claim.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Section 2.1 of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

procedural
burden of proof

Question

What standard of evidence is used to decide HOA disputes?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

This standard requires evidence that convinces the judge that the claim is more probably true than not.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960)

Topic Tags

evidence
legal standard

Question

Can an HOA Board pass a parking policy without amending the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

Yes, if the CC&Rs grant the Board the authority to adopt rules and regulations.

Detailed Answer

If the CC&Rs allow the Board to adopt reasonable rules by majority vote, a policy passed in compliance with that section is valid, provided it clarifies rather than subverts the existing CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

CC&Rs Section 5.3

Topic Tags

board authority
rules vs amendments

Question

Does the specific terminology 'rules' vs. 'restrictions' invalidate a policy?

Short Answer

Generally, no. Semantic differences are often considered irrelevant if the authority to regulate exists.

Detailed Answer

Arguments relying on semantic distinctions between 'rules and regulations' and 'restrictions' may fail if the Board has the clear authority to regulate the activity (e.g., parking) under the CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

legal interpretation
semantics

Question

What happens if a homeowner fails to meet the burden of proof?

Short Answer

The petition will be dismissed.

Detailed Answer

If the evidence presented is insufficient to establish that the HOA violated its documents, the Administrative Law Judge must dismiss the case.

Alj Quote

The undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that, because Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof that Respondent committed the alleged violation, his petition must be dismissed.

Legal Basis

N/A

Topic Tags

outcome
dismissal

Question

How long does a party have to request a rehearing after an ALJ decision?

Short Answer

30 days.

Detailed Answer

A request for rehearing must be filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of the service of the Order.

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Topic Tags

appeal
deadlines

Case

Docket No: 24F-H009-REL
Case Title: Thomas P. Hommrich v The Lakewood Community Association
Decision Date: 2023-11-09
Alj Name: Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Thomas P. Hommrich (petitioner)
Property owner, appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Quinten Cupps (HOA attorney)
VIal Fotheringham, LLP
Represented The Lakewood Community Association
Sandra Smith (community manager)
Lakewood Community Association
Witness who testified on behalf of Respondent

Neutral Parties

Brian Del Vecchio (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge for the hearing and final decision
Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge who issued the October 12, 2023 Order
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Moses Thompson (Judge)
Judge cited in precedent case (Brian Seatic v Lake Resort Condominium)

Other Participants

AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission/contact
vnunez (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission/contact
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission/contact
labril (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission/contact
Brian Seatic (party)
Party in precedent case (Brian Seatic v Lake Resort Condominium) cited during the hearing

Kristeen L. Herron v. The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners

Posted on October 16, 2023 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	24F-H001-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2023-10-16
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to establish a violation of Article 4.4 of the CC&Rs, finding that the Association's regulation of the lap pool temperature was authorized and reasonable, and dismissed the petition.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Kristeen L. Herron	Counsel	—
Respondent	The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association	Counsel	Lydia Linsmeier

Alleged Violations

CC&Rs Article 4.4

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner failed to establish a violation of Article 4.4 of the CC&Rs, finding that the Association's regulation of the lap pool temperature was authorized and reasonable, and dismissed the petition.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated CC&Rs Article 4.4. Petitioner's preference for warmer water did not establish discrimination or a rule violation.

Key Issues & Findings

Whether The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association (Respondent) is in violation of CC&Rs Article 4.4 for “turning off the lap pool heater … [f]or approximately one month” which Petitioner further alleges constitutes discrimination against senior residents.

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated CC&Rs Article 4.4 by turning off the lap pool heater around mid-April 2023, making the temperature too cold for her use and constituting discrimination against senior residents who rely on the pool for exercise. The ALJ found Petitioner failed to prove a violation of CC&Rs Article 4.4 or age-based discrimination.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

CC&Rs Article 4.4
The Villages at Rancho El Dorado RULES & REGULATIONS 3.5.7(e)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, CC&R Violation, Pool Heating, Discrimination Claim, Common Area Use, Burden of Proof, Planned Community

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.08(H)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-904(A)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-106
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
CC&Rs Article 4.4
CC&Rs 8.2(c)(12)
The Villages at Rancho El Dorado RULES & REGULATIONS 3.5.7
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

24F-H001-REL Decision – 1089588.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:27 (52.0 KB)

24F-H001-REL Decision – 1102316.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T18:00:31 (136.7 KB)

This matter came before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on September 25, 2023, concerning a dispute between homeowner Kristeen L. Herron (Petitioner) and The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association (Respondent HOA). The Petitioner, appearing on her own behalf, bore the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Respondent violated a community document.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The sole issue for determination was whether the HOA violated CC&Rs Article 4.4 by "turning off the lap pool heater" for approximately one month (mid-April to mid-May 2023), which Petitioner alleged constituted discrimination against senior residents. Petitioner, a "snowbird" residing at the property from October to May, uses the lap pool for exercise therapy due to health issues.

The HOA's governing rules (Rule 3.5.7(e)) stipulate that when the main community pool is closed for the winter season (late-October through April), the lap pool water "shall be heated and maintained at a temperature… which shall be between 78°F and 82°F". The HOA Board adopted a resolution on March 29, 2023, to shut off the lap pool heater simultaneously with opening the large pool, which occurred once the large pool reached 82°F.

Key Legal Arguments

Petitioner's Argument: Petitioner argued that turning off the heater around April 15, 2023, was premature, leaving the water too cold for senior residents who required warmer temperatures (preferably 84°F or higher) for health and exercise. Petitioner contended this action, along with the refusal to amend the pool rule (3.5.7(e)), violated CC&R 4.4, which prohibits rules that "discriminate among Owners". Petitioner's witness testified that the 78°F–82°F range was falsely attributed to the Arizona Department of Health.
Respondent's Argument: The HOA asserted its authority under CC&Rs Article 4.4 and 8.2(c)(12) to adopt and enforce rules governing common areas, including setting pool temperatures. The HOA maintained that the 78°F–82°F range was reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and followed the established rules for the winter season. Respondent argued that Petitioner's preference for a higher temperature did not establish a violation of the rule or amount to discrimination. Testimony confirmed the lap pool is not intended for medicinal purposes.

Outcome and Legal Conclusion

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) took the matter under advisement and issued a decision on October 16, 2023, ruling in favor of the Respondent.

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof. The material facts established that the HOA was obligated to heat the pool between 78°F and 82°F during the winter season (through April 2023).

The critical legal finding was that there was no evidence in the record to support the contention that the HOA failed to maintain temperatures within the required range through April 2023. Furthermore, the ALJ determined that Petitioner’s argument that she was unable to use the lap pool because the temperature was outside of her personal preference does not amount to age-based discrimination.

Based on these conclusions, the Petitioner’s petition was dismissed.

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “24F-H001-REL”, “case_title”: “Kristeen L. Herron v. The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association”, “decision_date”: “2023-10-16”, “alj_name”: “Jenna Clark”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “What is the burden of proof for a homeowner suing their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner must prove the violation by a “preponderance of the evidence.””, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing, the petitioner (homeowner) is responsible for proving that the HOA violated a community document. The standard of proof is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means showing that the claim is more likely true than not.”, “alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated a community document.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “procedure” ] }, { “question”: “Does an HOA rule regarding amenity usage constitute discrimination if it negatively affects senior citizens’ preferences?”, “short_answer”: “No, if the rule is applied neutrally and is within the HOA’s authority, personal preference does not equate to discrimination.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that rules regarding common area maintenance (such as pool temperature) do not amount to age-based discrimination simply because they do not meet the personal preferences of senior residents, provided the HOA has the authority to govern the property use.”, “alj_quote”: “Petitioner’s argument that she was unable to use the lap pool because the temperature was outside of her preference does not amount to age-based discrimination.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Article 4.4”, “topic_tags”: [ “discrimination”, “common areas”, “amenities” ] }, { “question”: “Can an HOA board adopt rules that restrict the use of common areas like pools?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the CC&Rs typically grant the Board the power to adopt rules governing property use.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision affirms that the HOA Board has the authority to adopt, amend, and repeal rules regarding the use of the property, including common areas, as long as those rules do not discriminate among owners and are consistent with the declaration.”, “alj_quote”: “By action of the Board, the Association may, from time to time and subject to the provisions of this Declaration, adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations to be known as the ‘Rules.’ The Rules may restrict and govern the use of the Property”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Article 4.4”, “topic_tags”: [ “HOA authority”, “rules and regulations”, “common areas” ] }, { “question”: “Does the administrative court have the power to interpret the CC&Rs as a contract?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ confirmed that the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and the property owner, and the OAH has the legal authority to interpret this contract during a dispute.”, “alj_quote”: “Thus, the CC&Rs form an enforceable contract between the Association and each property owner… OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.”, “legal_basis”: “Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass’n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195”, “topic_tags”: [ “contract law”, “jurisdiction”, “CC&Rs” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA follows its written rules regarding maintenance (e.g., heating schedules), is it liable for a violation?”, “short_answer”: “No, if the HOA acts in accordance with the established rules, there is no violation.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA rules specified heating the pool during the ‘winter season’ to a specific range. Because there was no evidence the HOA failed to meet these specific written requirements, the ALJ found no violation.”, “alj_quote”: “There is no evidence in the record that would support the contention that the Association failed to do so through April 2023.”, “legal_basis”: “Recreation Center Complex Rule 3.5.7(e)”, “topic_tags”: [ “maintenance”, “compliance”, “violations” ] }, { “question”: “What is the definition of ‘preponderance of the evidence’?”, “short_answer”: “It is evidence that convinces the judge the claim is ‘more probably true than not.'”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision defines this legal standard as the greater weight of the evidence, which inclines a fair mind to one side of the issue, even if it doesn’t wholly free the mind from doubt.”, “alj_quote”: “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”, “legal_basis”: “MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal definitions”, “evidence” ] }, { “question”: “Does a homeowner have to pay a fee to file a petition against their HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, a filing fee is required by statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “The petitioner in this case was required to tender a $500.00 filing fee to the Department of Real Estate when submitting their petition.”, “alj_quote”: “On July 07, 2023, tendered $500.00 to the Department as a filing fee for the petition at issue.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05”, “topic_tags”: [ “fees”, “filing process”, “procedure” ] } ] }

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Kristeen L. Herron (petitioner)
The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association
Property owner and member of the Association
Karen Ellis (witness)
The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association
Witness for Petitioner; property owner/member
LouAnne Schmidt (observer)
Potential witness for Petitioner, not permitted to testify

Respondent Side

Lydia Linsmeier (HOA attorney)
Carpenter Hazelwood Delgado & Bolen
Eden Cohen (HOA attorney)
Carpenter Hazelwood Delgado & Bolen
April Lord (witness)
City Property Management
Vice President of Management Services
Christiano Monteiro (board member)
The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association
Board President; Testified as witness for Respondent
John Deck (maintenance technician)
The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association
Director of Maintenance
Mark (board member)
The Villages at Rancho El Dorado Homeowners Association
Board member mentioned making a motion
Heather Tiveres (property manager)
City Property Management
Former managing agent employee whose name was clarified in testimony

Neutral Parties

Jenna Clark (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate

Harry G. Turner v. MountainGate Home Owners Association, Inc.

Posted on August 15, 2023 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	23F-H045-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2023-08-14
Administrative Law Judge	Brian Del Vecchio
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner Harry G. Turner failed to meet his burden of proof to demonstrate that the Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc. violated Article 10 Section 4 of the CC&Rs by planning drainage construction in Tract H.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Harry G. Turner	Counsel	—
Respondent	Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc.	Counsel	—

Alleged Violations

Article 10 Section 4 of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner Harry G. Turner failed to meet his burden of proof to demonstrate that the Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc. violated Article 10 Section 4 of the CC&Rs by planning drainage construction in Tract H.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to reconcile conflicting designations of Tract H in the plat map (Preserved/Active Open Space vs. Drainage), thus failing to prove that the drainage ditch constituted a prohibited change of use.

Key Issues & Findings

Required membership vote for common area use change (Tract H drainage ditch)

Petitioner alleged the HOA (Respondent) violated CC&Rs Article 10 Section 4 by planning to dig a drainage ditch in Tract H, arguing this was a change of use requiring a 2/3rds membership vote. Respondent argued Tract H was already designated for drainage in the 'Conveyance and Dedication' portion of the plat map, negating the need for a vote.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed. Petitioner's request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Article 10 Section 4 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Mountain Gate Homes, a Townhouse Project

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Drainage, Common Area, Change of Use, Burden of Proof, Planned Community, Plat Map

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)
Article 10 Section 4 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Mountain Gate Homes, a Townhouse Project

Related election workflow tool

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H045-REL Decision – 1055488.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:36 (49.7 KB)

23F-H045-REL Decision – 1057334.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:40 (43.7 KB)

23F-H045-REL Decision – 1083773.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:56:42 (105.1 KB)

This summary addresses the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing in the matter of Harry G. Turner v. MountainGate Home Owners Association, Inc., Case No. 23F-H045-REL. The hearing was conducted by Administrative Law Judge Brian Del Vecchio on July 24, 2023.

Key Facts and Main Issue

The Petitioner, Harry G. Turner, a MountainGate Homes property owner and member of the Association, challenged the Respondent Home Owners Association's (HOA) plan, announced November 14, 2022, to dig a drainage ditch in Tract H of the subdivision. The core legal issue before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) was whether the HOA violated Article 10 Section 4 of the CC&Rs (Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements).

Article 10 Section 4 requires the Board to secure approval from not less than two-thirds (2/3rds) of the members voting if they adopt a resolution to change the use of a specified part of the Common Areas. The dispute centered on the established classification of Tract H: if Tract H was already designated for drainage, implementing the ditch would not be a change of use and would not require a vote; if it was designated solely as "open space," a vote would be required.

Key Arguments

Petitioner's Argument (Harry G. Turner):

The Petitioner argued that the Board violated the CC&Rs by moving forward with the ditch without a membership vote. Turner contended that Tract H was designated as "Preserved/Active Open Space" according to the "Tract Data" portion of the plat map and the Subdivision Disclosure Reports. He also presented evidence, including certified engineering reports, suggesting that the necessary drainage facilities were completed or certified as "as built" during the community's transition from condominiums to townhomes between 2006 and 2010. Turner shared a prior legal opinion recommending a membership vote due to the ambiguity surrounding whether the ditch constituted a "change of use". He asserted that the HOA was attempting new construction on common area designated as passive open space.

Respondent's Argument (MountainGate HOA, represented by Michael Luden and witness Brenda Anderson):

The Respondent denied violating the CC&Rs, arguing that no change protocols were needed because Tract H has always been dedicated for drainage. The HOA pointed to the "Conveyance and Dedication" portion of the plat maps (dating from 2006, 2008, and 2010), which explicitly listed Tract H as common area to be used for "open space, landscaping, and drainage". The HOA argued that the drainage plan approved by certified engineers was never fully implemented by the original developers, resulting in severe flooding experienced by neighbors along the northern edge of the property (Tract H). Therefore, the HOA was merely implementing an *original* intended use, not changing the use.

Final Decision and Legal Outcome

The ALJ determined that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated Article 10 Section 4 of the CC&Rs.

The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to meet this burden. The evidence showed a conflict in the governing documents: the plat map described Tract H as "Preserved/Active Open Space" in the "Tract Data" section, but designated it for "drainage" in the "Conveyance and Dedication" section. Since neither party presented sufficient evidence to establish which description controlled the legal designation of Tract H, the Petitioner could not definitively prove that Tract H was *not* classified as drainage.

The ALJ concluded that the Respondent did not violate Article 10 Section 4 of the CC&Rs. Petitioner’s petition was dismissed, and the request to levy a civil penalty against the Respondent was denied.

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the community's CC&Rs in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In a hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings, it is not the HOA's job to disprove the allegations initially. The homeowner must provide sufficient evidence to prove the violation occurred.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article 10 Section 4 of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

legal standards
procedure

Question

What is the legal standard of evidence required to win a case against an HOA?

Short Answer

The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim is more probable than not.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner does not need to prove the violation beyond a reasonable doubt. They must simply show that their version of events or interpretation of the documents is more likely true than the HOA's version.

Alj Quote

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Legal Basis

Preponderance of Evidence

Topic Tags

evidence
legal definitions

Question

What happens if community documents (like a plat map) contain conflicting descriptions of a common area?

Short Answer

If the homeowner cannot prove why their preferred description should control, they fail to meet their burden of proof, and the case may be dismissed.

Detailed Answer

In this case, one section of the plat map described the land as 'Open Space' while another described it as 'Drainage.' Because the homeowner could not legally establish why the 'Open Space' description superseded the 'Drainage' description, the judge ruled against them.

Alj Quote

Neither party presented sufficient evidence to determine why their characterization of Tract “H” controlled. Petitioner bears the burden of proof and has failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet his burden.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

document interpretation
common areas

Question

Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over CC&R disputes?

Short Answer

Yes, they have jurisdiction over disputes between owners and associations regarding violations of community documents or statutes.

Detailed Answer

Homeowners can petition the department for a hearing regarding alleged violations of the community's governing documents (CC&Rs) or state laws regulating planned communities.

Alj Quote

This matter lies within the Department’s jurisdiction… regarding a dispute between an owner and a planned community association. The owner or association may petition the department for a hearing concerning violations of community documents or violations of the statutes that regulate planned communities

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

jurisdiction
regulatory authority

Question

If an HOA modifies a common area (e.g., digging a ditch), does it always require a member vote?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the modification aligns with a designated use in the governing documents (like 'drainage'), it may not constitute a 'change of use' requiring a vote.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner argued a vote was required to change 'Open Space' to a drainage ditch. The HOA argued the land was already dedicated for 'drainage,' so no use change occurred. The judge dismissed the complaint because the homeowner failed to prove it wasn't already a drainage area.

Alj Quote

Respondent argued it did not violate the CC&Rs because it did not change the characteristic of the common area and therefore no change protocols needed to be observed… Petitioner failed to meet his burden.

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

common areas
voting rights

Question

Can I request a civil penalty be levied against my HOA?

Short Answer

You can request it, but it will be denied if you fail to prove the violation.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, the judge explicitly denied the petitioner's request for a civil penalty after dismissing the petition.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

penalties
remedies

Case

Docket No: 23F-H045-REL
Case Title: Harry G. Turner v Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc.
Decision Date: 2023-08-14
Alj Name: Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

Who is responsible for proving that an HOA violated the community's CC&Rs in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The petitioner (the homeowner filing the complaint) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Article 10 Section 4 of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

legal standards
procedure

Question

What is the legal standard of evidence required to win a case against an HOA?

Short Answer

The standard is a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning the claim is more probable than not.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Legal Basis

Preponderance of Evidence

Topic Tags

evidence
legal definitions

Question

What happens if community documents (like a plat map) contain conflicting descriptions of a common area?

Short Answer

If the homeowner cannot prove why their preferred description should control, they fail to meet their burden of proof, and the case may be dismissed.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Burden of Proof

Topic Tags

document interpretation
common areas

Question

Does the Department of Real Estate have jurisdiction over CC&R disputes?

Short Answer

Yes, they have jurisdiction over disputes between owners and associations regarding violations of community documents or statutes.

Detailed Answer

Homeowners can petition the department for a hearing regarding alleged violations of the community's governing documents (CC&Rs) or state laws regulating planned communities.

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

jurisdiction
regulatory authority

Question

If an HOA modifies a common area (e.g., digging a ditch), does it always require a member vote?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the modification aligns with a designated use in the governing documents (like 'drainage'), it may not constitute a 'change of use' requiring a vote.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

CC&R Interpretation

Topic Tags

common areas
voting rights

Question

Can I request a civil penalty be levied against my HOA?

Short Answer

You can request it, but it will be denied if you fail to prove the violation.

Detailed Answer

In this decision, the judge explicitly denied the petitioner's request for a civil penalty after dismissing the petition.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent is denied.

Legal Basis

Administrative Order

Topic Tags

penalties
remedies

Case

Docket No: 23F-H045-REL
Case Title: Harry G. Turner v Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc.
Decision Date: 2023-08-14
Alj Name: Brian Del Vecchio
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Harry G. Turner (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf

Respondent Side

Michael Luden (president/representative)
Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc.
Appeared on behalf of Respondent. Identified as President of the Homeowners Association
Brenda Anderson (witness/secretary)
Mountain Gate Home Owners Association, Inc.
Witness for Respondent; Secretary of Mountain Gate Homeowners Association
Kelly Callahan (HOA attorney)
HOA's attorney who wrote an email regarding the drainage ditch proposal

Neutral Parties

Brian Del Vecchio (ALJ)
OAH
Administrative Law Judge
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed in transmission list
Jeremiah Lloyd (Community Development Director)
Pinetop Lakeside
Community Development Director for Pinetop Lakeside
Bill Best (County Engineer)
Navajo County
Navajo County Engineer
Emory Ellsworth (engineer)
Painted Sky Engineering and Surveying
Engineer consulted by Petitioner
John Murphy (engineer)
Murphy Engineering Group
Engineer whose company provided original certified plans

Other Participants

AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed in transmission list
vnunez (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed in transmission list
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed in transmission list
labril (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed in transmission list
Ken Anderson (community member)
Mentioned as being present when a document was allegedly falsified
Gary Lao (developer)
Original developer

Ryan McMahon v. Alhambra Terrace Condominium Association

Posted on August 7, 2023 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	23F-H060-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2023-08-07
Administrative Law Judge	Jenna Clark
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Alhambra Terrace Condominium Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Ryan McMahon	Counsel	—
Respondent	Alhambra Terrace Condominium Association	Counsel	Mike Yohler

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Alhambra Terrace Condominium Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to fully satisfy sub-requirements 6, 7, and/or 8 of the Preliminary Architectural Approval Letter, as the documentation provided (specifically from the plumbing company and designer) lacked the necessary professional weight or specificity required by the Association to address structural and plumbing concerns.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of statute regarding denial of interior modification request.

Petitioner alleged the Association violated ARS § 33-1221 by denying his request to combine two units and add two bathrooms, claiming the denial was unsupported by facts or governing documents. The ALJ found Petitioner failed to prove the violation.

Orders: Petitioner's petition was denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 9, Article 3
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: condominium modification, HOA denial, structural integrity, plumbing concerns, burden of proof, architectural approval

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 33, Chapter 9, Article 3
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H060-REL Decision – 1081134.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:59:25 (189.0 KB)

This is a summary of the administrative hearing held on July 19, 2023, regarding Petitioner Ryan McMahon's claim against the Alhamra Terrace Condominium Association (OAD doc number 23 FH060 REL). Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jenna Clark presided.

Key Facts

Petitioner Ryan McMahon, who owns Unit B8, and his fiancée, who owns the adjacent Unit B4 below him, sought permission from the Association to combine the two units (B8 and B4) and add two new bathrooms. The Association, governed by its CC&Rs, issued a series of denials based on concerns regarding the structural integrity and the piping system of the condominium.

In June 2022, the Association issued a conditional approval that required Petitioner to provide specific documentation, including an engineer's sign-off on community plumbing concerns, detailing the proper size and condition of the main sewer line, and ensuring the pipes could accommodate up to six bathrooms, four kitchens, and four laundry units. The conditions also required submission of detailed plans for sewer pipe venting and exhaust fans.

Petitioner subsequently submitted documentation, including letters from a licensed structural engineer (Robert A. Young, PE) confirming no structural reason for denial, and correspondence from a plumbing company (Paradise Valley Plumbing Company, Inc.) providing calculations and stating the project would not negatively impact the plumbing or drainage capacity. The City of Scottsdale had reviewed the plans for code conformity but required HOA approval before issuing permits.

The Association, represented by witness Kit Groseth (Board President), denied the request multiple times, asserting the documents submitted were "vague, incomplete, and unreliable". The Association argued that the Petitioner failed to provide information specifically requested by the preliminary approval letter, particularly documentation from a registered plumbing engineer addressing the detailed capacity concerns. The Association admitted it did not hire its own engineer due to the anticipated high cost (estimated $5,000–$10,000).

Main Issues and Legal Points

The core issue was whether the Association violated Arizona Revised Statute (ARIZ. REV. STAT.) § 33-1221 by denying the interior modification request. This statute permits unit owners to make alterations that *do not impair the structural integrity or mechanical systems* of the condominium.

The critical legal point focused on Petitioner's burden of proof. The ALJ was tasked with determining if Petitioner provided a preponderance of the evidence proving the Association acted illegally by denying the request.

The Association argued that while Petitioner provided some engineering support, he did not meet the specific itemized requirements of the conditional approval, particularly regarding specific plumbing engineering reports.

Outcome and Final Decision

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioner did not sustain his burden of proof.

The ALJ found that Petitioner failed to fully comply with itemized requirements 6, 7, and/or 8 of the Preliminary Architectural Approval Letter. Specifically, the plumbing company providing calculations was not a licensed structural engineering firm, limiting the weight of its attestation. Furthermore, the structural engineer’s reports (Mr. Young) were not offered for consideration regarding the pipes, fans, and vents, as required by the conditional approval.

Based on these findings, the ALJ issued an ORDER that Petitioner's petition be denied. This decision is binding unless a request for rehearing is filed with the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate.

Questions

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner alleging an HOA violation?

Short Answer

The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner filing the petition is responsible for proving their case. They must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the HOA violated the relevant statutes or community documents.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243; ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

burden of proof
legal standards
hearing procedure

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?

Short Answer

It means the evidence must show the claim is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

To win a hearing, the evidence presented must carry more weight than the opposing side's evidence. It doesn't necessarily mean having more witnesses, but rather having evidence with superior convincing force that inclines an impartial mind to one side.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Common Law / Legal Standard

Topic Tags

legal standards
evidence
definitions

Question

Can I combine two adjoining condo units I own by removing the wall between them?

Short Answer

Yes, generally, provided the removal does not impair structural integrity or mechanical systems.

Detailed Answer

Arizona law allows a unit owner who acquires an adjoining unit to remove or alter intervening partitions. However, this is strictly conditioned on the requirement that such acts do not weaken the building's structural integrity, mechanical systems, or support.

Alj Quote

After acquiring an adjoining unit… [a unit owner] may remove or alter any intervening partition or create apertures in intervening partitions… if those acts do not impair the structural integrity or mechanical systems or lessen the support of any portion of the condominium.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221(3)

Topic Tags

homeowner rights
renovations
condominiums

Question

Does the administrative law judge have the power to interpret the HOA's contract (CC&Rs)?

Short Answer

Yes, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.

Detailed Answer

When a dispute involves the community documents (like CC&Rs), the Administrative Law Judge has the legal authority to interpret those documents to decide the contested case.

Alj Quote

OAH has the authority to hear and decide the contested case at bar. OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.

Topic Tags

jurisdiction
CC&Rs
contract interpretation

Question

Can the HOA reject my renovation if I provide a plumber's report instead of the requested structural engineer's report?

Short Answer

Yes, the HOA can reject the request if the specific professional expertise requested (e.g., structural engineering) is not provided.

Detailed Answer

If an HOA requests a specific type of expert opinion (such as a structural engineer) to ensure the integrity of the building, providing a report from a different type of professional (such as a plumbing company) may be considered insufficient evidence, justifying a denial.

Alj Quote

Paradise Valley Plumbing Company, Inc. is not a licensed structural engineering firm, so unfortunately the attestation of its Qualifying Party cannot be afforded much weight, if any.

Legal Basis

Fact-specific determination / ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221

Topic Tags

renovations
architectural committee
expert evidence

Question

Do I need written permission from the HOA to change the exterior appearance of my condo?

Short Answer

Yes, changing the exterior appearance or common elements requires written permission.

Detailed Answer

State statute explicitly prohibits unit owners from changing the appearance of common elements or the exterior of a unit without obtaining written permission from the association.

Alj Quote

Shall not change the appearance of the common elements, or the exterior appearance of a unit or any other portion of the condominium, without written permission of the association.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221(2)

Topic Tags

exterior changes
architectural control
common elements

Question

If I hire a structural engineer, must their report specifically address the HOA's stated concerns?

Short Answer

Yes, simply hiring an engineer is not enough; the report must address the specific items requested by the HOA (e.g., integrity of pipes, fans, vents).

Detailed Answer

Submitting an engineer's letter that does not address the specific technical concerns raised by the HOA (such as the condition of pipes or venting plans) may result in a denial because the homeowner failed to meet the burden of proof regarding safety and structural integrity.

Alj Quote

While Mr. Young is undoubtedly a licensed structural engineer… it is unclear if he made determinations regarding the integrity of the Association’s pipes, fans, and vents as required by sub-requirements 6-8 of the Association’s PRELIMINARY ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL LETTER.

Legal Basis

Evidence sufficiency

Topic Tags

renovations
compliance
engineering reports

Case

Docket No: 23F-H060-REL
Case Title: Ryan McMahon vs. Alhambra Terrace Condominium Association
Decision Date: 2023-08-07
Alj Name: Jenna Clark
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

What is the burden of proof for a homeowner alleging an HOA violation?

Short Answer

The homeowner (petitioner) bears the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1243; ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119

Topic Tags

burden of proof
legal standards
hearing procedure

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?

Short Answer

It means the evidence must show the claim is more probably true than not.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Common Law / Legal Standard

Topic Tags

legal standards
evidence
definitions

Question

Can I combine two adjoining condo units I own by removing the wall between them?

Short Answer

Yes, generally, provided the removal does not impair structural integrity or mechanical systems.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221(3)

Topic Tags

homeowner rights
renovations
condominiums

Question

Does the administrative law judge have the power to interpret the HOA's contract (CC&Rs)?

Short Answer

Yes, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.

Detailed Answer

When a dispute involves the community documents (like CC&Rs), the Administrative Law Judge has the legal authority to interpret those documents to decide the contested case.

Alj Quote

OAH has the authority to hear and decide the contested case at bar. OAH has the authority to interpret the contract between the parties.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et seq.

Topic Tags

jurisdiction
CC&Rs
contract interpretation

Question

Can the HOA reject my renovation if I provide a plumber's report instead of the requested structural engineer's report?

Short Answer

Yes, the HOA can reject the request if the specific professional expertise requested (e.g., structural engineering) is not provided.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Paradise Valley Plumbing Company, Inc. is not a licensed structural engineering firm, so unfortunately the attestation of its Qualifying Party cannot be afforded much weight, if any.

Legal Basis

Fact-specific determination / ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221

Topic Tags

renovations
architectural committee
expert evidence

Question

Do I need written permission from the HOA to change the exterior appearance of my condo?

Short Answer

Yes, changing the exterior appearance or common elements requires written permission.

Detailed Answer

State statute explicitly prohibits unit owners from changing the appearance of common elements or the exterior of a unit without obtaining written permission from the association.

Alj Quote

Shall not change the appearance of the common elements, or the exterior appearance of a unit or any other portion of the condominium, without written permission of the association.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1221(2)

Topic Tags

exterior changes
architectural control
common elements

Question

If I hire a structural engineer, must their report specifically address the HOA's stated concerns?

Short Answer

Yes, simply hiring an engineer is not enough; the report must address the specific items requested by the HOA (e.g., integrity of pipes, fans, vents).

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Evidence sufficiency

Topic Tags

renovations
compliance
engineering reports

Case

Docket No: 23F-H060-REL
Case Title: Ryan McMahon vs. Alhambra Terrace Condominium Association
Decision Date: 2023-08-07
Alj Name: Jenna Clark
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Ryan McMahon (petitioner)
Full name: Ryan Christopher McMahon
Christina Samaras (witness)
Petitioner's fiance and observer. Also referred to as Christina Cincer.
Robert A. Young (engineer/consultant)
Structural Engineer (PE) providing documentation for Petitioner
Scott Olsson (plumber/consultant)
Paradise Valley Plumbing Company, Inc.
Licensed plumber/Qualifying Party providing statements for Petitioner
Gary Devol (designer/consultant)
Designs by Devol LLC
Designer who created the modification plans

Respondent Side

Mike Yohler (attorney)
Farmers Insurance
Counsel of record for Respondent
Kent William Groseth (board member)
Alhamra Terrace Condominium Association
Board President and witness
Emma (property manager representative)
AMCOR Property Professionals, Inc.
Exchanged correspondence with Petitioner regarding denial
Mia (board member)
Alhamra Terrace Condominium Association
HOA president at the time of initial request
Jim Nelson (board member)
Alhamra Terrace Condominium Association
Co-vice president
Robin (property manager representative)
AMCOR Property Professionals, Inc.
Vice President involved in email correspondence
Miss Morgan (attorney)
Previous counsel replaced by Mike Yohler

Neutral Parties

Jenna Clark (ALJ)
OAH
Administrative Law Judge
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
ADRE
Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate

Clifford S Burnes V. Saguaro Crest Homeowners’ Association

Posted on April 14, 2023 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	23F-H033-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2023-04-14
Administrative Law Judge	Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition, finding that the Respondent HOA did not violate Article XV of the Articles of Incorporation during the dissolution vote. The required 2/3 majority was achieved with 11 votes in favor, and the requirement for signed assent was met by the signatures provided on the ballot envelopes.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Clifford S. Burnes	Counsel	—
Respondent	Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association	Counsel	John T. Crotty, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Articles of Incorporation, Section XV

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Petition, finding that the Respondent HOA did not violate Article XV of the Articles of Incorporation during the dissolution vote. The required 2/3 majority was achieved with 11 votes in favor, and the requirement for signed assent was met by the signatures provided on the ballot envelopes.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of voting requirements for dissolution of the Homeowners Association

Petitioner alleged that the dissolution vote was invalid because the ballots were not signed, and Respondent failed to achieve the 2/3 authorized votes needed, noting only 9 ballots were cast for dissolution. Respondent argued that 11 votes were cast, meeting the 2/3 requirement (10 votes needed), and that signatures on the ballot envelopes satisfied the Article XV requirement for assent given in writing and signed by Owners.

Orders: Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

A.R.S. § 32-2199
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Articles of Incorporation, Voting Rights, Dissolution, Burden of Proof, Planned Community

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 32-2199
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)

Related election workflow tool

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H033-REL Decision – 1035350.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:02:34 (55.1 KB)

23F-H033-REL Decision – 1049512.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:02:39 (100.5 KB)

23F-H033-REL Decision – 1035350.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:11 (55.1 KB)

23F-H033-REL Decision – 1049512.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:54:15 (100.5 KB)

This summary details the administrative hearing held before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella in the matter of *Clifford S. Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association* (HOA), Docket No. 23F-H033-REL, on March 30, 2023.

Key Facts and Issue

The Petitioner, Clifford S. Burnes, alleged that the Saguaro Crest Homeowners’ Association violated its governing documents. The single, central issue set for hearing was whether the HOA's vote on December 11, 2021, regarding the dissolution of the HOA, “did not satisfy the voting requirement of Section XV (15) of the Articles of Incorporation”.

Section XV of the Articles of Incorporation requires that the Association may be dissolved with "assent given in writing and signed by Owners representing not less than two-thirds (2/3) of the authorized votes". The parties stipulated that 10 or more votes constituted 2/3 of the authorized votes (out of 15 authorized votes). Petitioner bore the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Hearing Proceedings and Key Arguments

Petitioner's Argument: Petitioner Burnes argued the vote failed on two main legal points:

Insufficient Votes: Petitioner contended that only nine (9) ballots were cast in favor of dissolution, which did not meet the 2/3 requirement. He further asserted that the board improperly declared the motion passed and changed the vote count from nine (announced at the meeting) to eleven (reported in the meeting minutes).
Unsigned Ballots: Petitioner argued that the dissolution vote failed because the ballots themselves were not signed, violating Article XV’s requirement for assent "signed by Owners". He also argued that owners of multiple lots should have been issued separate ballots for each vote.

Respondent's Argument: The Respondent (HOA), represented by John T. Crotty, Esq., and through the testimony of HOA President Sarina Martinez, countered that the requirements were satisfied.

Vote Count Justified: Ms. Martinez testified that while nine ballots were received for dissolution, two of those ballots belonged to owners who owned two lots each, meaning those two ballots accounted for four votes. Citing the CCNRs (Article 2, Section 2.2 C1), Ms. Martinez confirmed that each owner is entitled to "one vote for each lot owned". This meant the total votes for dissolution were eleven (11), which exceeded the necessary 2/3 threshold (10 votes).
Signature Requirement Satisfied: Respondent argued that Article XV does not require the *ballot* itself to be signed. The ballots were distributed as a package with envelopes. Ms. Martinez confirmed that the required signatures, lot number(s), and date were obtained on the envelopes that contained the ballots, thereby satisfying the "assent given in writing and signed" provision.

Final Decision and Outcome

The Administrative Law Judge issued a decision on April 14, 2023, ruling in favor of the Respondent.

The ALJ found that 11 votes were cast on 9 ballots, which represented at least 2/3 of the authorized votes. The ALJ concluded that Article XV "does not specify that the ballot itself must signed," and because the signatures were contained on the envelopes corresponding to the ballots, the requirement for "assent given in writing and signed by Owners" was satisfied.

Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated Article XV of the Articles of Incorporation. Accordingly, the Petitioner’s Petition was dismissed.

Questions

Question

If my HOA requires votes to be 'in writing and signed,' does the ballot itself need a signature?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the governing documents do not explicitly specify that the ballot itself must be signed, a signature on the envelope containing the ballot may satisfy the requirement.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ determined that if the Articles of Incorporation require assent 'in writing and signed' but do not specify that the ballot itself must be signed, a signature on the envelope containing the ballot is sufficient compliance. In this case, envelopes with the homeowner's signature, lot number, and date were deemed to satisfy the requirement.

Alj Quote

Article XV of the Articles of Incorporation does not specify that the ballot itself must signed, and in this case, the signatures are contained on the envelopes that held the corresponding ballots, thereby satisfying the language of the charged provision.

Legal Basis

Articles of Incorporation, Article XV

Topic Tags

voting
ballots
signatures
governing documents

Question

If I own multiple lots, do I need to submit a separate physical ballot for each lot?

Short Answer

No, unless you can cite specific legal authority or governing documents that require separate physical ballots.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ rejected the argument that separate ballots are required for each vote possessed by homeowners who own multiple lots, specifically noting that the petitioner failed to provide any authority supporting that claim.

Alj Quote

Petitioner further testified that there should have been separate ballots for each vote for homeowners who own two lots. However, Petitioner did not cite to any authority establishing such.

Legal Basis

Lack of citation to authority

Topic Tags

voting
multiple lots
ballots

Question

How are votes counted if some homeowners own more than one property?

Short Answer

Votes are counted based on 'authorized votes' rather than just the number of physical ballots cast. One ballot may represent multiple votes.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ accepted the calculation where fewer physical ballots were cast than the total vote count because some ballots represented multiple votes (one for each lot owned). The decision validated that 9 ballots could validly represent 11 authorized votes.

Alj Quote

In this case, eleven (11) votes were cast on nine (9) ballots, which represents at least 2/3 of the owners authorized to vote.

Legal Basis

Articles of Incorporation, Article XV

Topic Tags

voting
vote counting
authorized votes

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the rules?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the homeowner alleging the violation must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' It is not the HOA's job to disprove the allegation initially.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

burden of proof
legal standards
administrative hearing

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA dispute?

Short Answer

It means the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ defines this standard as proof that convinces the decision-maker that the contention is 'more probably true than not,' or holds the greater weight of evidence.

Alj Quote

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5

Topic Tags

legal definitions
evidence
standard of proof

Case

Docket No: 23F-H033-REL
Case Title: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Decision Date: 2023-04-14
Alj Name: Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

If my HOA requires votes to be 'in writing and signed,' does the ballot itself need a signature?

Short Answer

Not necessarily. If the governing documents do not explicitly specify that the ballot itself must be signed, a signature on the envelope containing the ballot may satisfy the requirement.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

Articles of Incorporation, Article XV

Topic Tags

voting
ballots
signatures
governing documents

Question

If I own multiple lots, do I need to submit a separate physical ballot for each lot?

Short Answer

No, unless you can cite specific legal authority or governing documents that require separate physical ballots.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Petitioner further testified that there should have been separate ballots for each vote for homeowners who own two lots. However, Petitioner did not cite to any authority establishing such.

Legal Basis

Lack of citation to authority

Topic Tags

voting
multiple lots
ballots

Question

How are votes counted if some homeowners own more than one property?

Short Answer

Votes are counted based on 'authorized votes' rather than just the number of physical ballots cast. One ballot may represent multiple votes.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

In this case, eleven (11) votes were cast on nine (9) ballots, which represents at least 2/3 of the owners authorized to vote.

Legal Basis

Articles of Incorporation, Article XV

Topic Tags

voting
vote counting
authorized votes

Question

Who is responsible for proving that the HOA violated the rules?

Short Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

In an administrative hearing, the homeowner alleging the violation must prove their case by a 'preponderance of the evidence.' It is not the HOA's job to disprove the allegation initially.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

burden of proof
legal standards
administrative hearing

Question

What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA dispute?

Short Answer

It means the claim is more likely true than not.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ defines this standard as proof that convinces the decision-maker that the contention is 'more probably true than not,' or holds the greater weight of evidence.

Alj Quote

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

Legal Basis

Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5

Topic Tags

legal definitions
evidence
standard of proof

Case

Docket No: 23F-H033-REL
Case Title: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Decision Date: 2023-04-14
Alj Name: Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Clifford S. Burnes (petitioner)
Also referred to as Clifford (Norm) S. Burnes

Respondent Side

John T. Crotty (HOA attorney)
LAW OFFICES OF COLLIN T. WELCH
Esmeralda Sarina Ayala-Martinez (HOA President, witness)
Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Also referred to as Sarina Martinez or Serena Martinez

Neutral Parties

Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
ADRE
Tammy I (ALJ)
Mentioned as presiding over related case

Other Participants

AHansen (ADRE staff)
ADRE
vnunez (ADRE staff)
ADRE
djones (ADRE staff)
ADRE
labril (ADRE staff)
ADRE

Clifford S Burnes V. Saguaro Crest Homeowners’ Association

Posted on April 13, 2023 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	23F-H031-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2023-04-13
Administrative Law Judge	Adam D. Stone
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association violated Article 2.1 of the Bylaws by not holding elections. The Bylaw states the annual meeting is for the purpose of 'electing or announcing the results of the election of Directors' and transacting 'other business' (which included dissolution), and the HOA was not required to hold elections if results could have been announced or if dissolution proceedings were underway.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Clifford S Burnes	Counsel	—
Respondent	Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association	Counsel	John T. Crotty

Alleged Violations

SCHA Bylaws Article 2.1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association violated Article 2.1 of the Bylaws by not holding elections. The Bylaw states the annual meeting is for the purpose of 'electing or announcing the results of the election of Directors' and transacting 'other business' (which included dissolution), and the HOA was not required to hold elections if results could have been announced or if dissolution proceedings were underway.

Why this result: The Bylaws did not strictly require elections be held, and Petitioner failed to object to the board remaining in place to oversee the dissolution.

Key Issues & Findings

Annual meeting

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Article 2.1 of the Bylaws by failing to hold Board of Directors elections at the 2021 annual meeting. Respondent argued the language ('for the purpose of electing or announcing the results') did not require elections and that the dissolution vote superseded the immediate need for elections, especially since no one objected at the meeting.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition was denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Bylaws, Election Dispute, Dissolution, Annual Meeting, Burden of Proof, Waiver

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Related election workflow tool

Preview HOABallot election workflows

Video Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H031-REL Decision – 1035344.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:01:26 (51.8 KB)

23F-H031-REL Decision – 1049021.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:01:32 (114.7 KB)

23F-H031-REL Decision – 1035344.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:49 (51.8 KB)

23F-H031-REL Decision – 1049021.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:51 (114.7 KB)

This summary concerns the hearing held before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Adam D. Stone of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on March 29, 2023, in the matter of *Clifford S Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association* (SCHA), Docket No. 23F-H031-REL.

Key Facts and Main Issues

The central issue was whether the Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association (Respondent) violated its Bylaws, specifically Article 2.1, by failing to hold Board of Directors elections at the annual meeting on December 11, 2021.

Article 2.1 mandates that an annual meeting "shall be held at least every twelve (12) months… for the purpose of electing or announcing the results of the election of Directors and transacting such other business as may properly come before the meeting".

Key facts established during the hearing include:

The annual meeting was held on December 11, 2021.
At that meeting, the voting members properly approved a vote to dissolve the SCHA.
The Board President and Vice President, whose terms were ending, volunteered to remain in their positions to oversee the dissolution process.
No elections were held for the subsequent 2022 calendar year.
Petitioner Clifford S. Burnes was present at the meeting but did not voice an objection to the board members remaining or to the lack of elections at that time.

Key Arguments

Petitioner's Argument: Petitioner Burnes argued that the use of the word "shall" and the phrase "for the purpose of electing" in Article 2.1 constituted a requirement for elections to be held annually, and the SCHA violated this bylaw. Mr. Burnes requested that the ALJ find in his favor, require the SCHA to comply, reimburse his filing fee, and impose a civil fine on the HOA.

Respondent's Argument: The SCHA, represented by John T. Crotty, denied the claim. The Respondent argued that Article 2.1 provided options: either holding elections *or* announcing the results of elections, and also permitted transacting "such other business," which included the majority-approved dissolution. The SCHA argued that had the dissolution vote failed, an election would have been held. Crucially, the SCHA argued that Mr. Burnes waived his claim of violation by failing to object at the meeting, despite his familiarity with the governing documents.

Legal Outcome and Final Decision

The ALJ determined that the Petitioner bore the burden of proving the violation of Article 2.1 by a preponderance of the evidence.

The ALJ concluded that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof. The legal analysis found that Article 2.1, as written, did not strictly require elections to be held at the meeting itself, as it allowed for results to be announced. Furthermore, the ALJ noted that the clear approval of the dissolution vote meant there would be no need for a new board once the process was complete. The ALJ deemed the Petitioner’s failure to raise an objection at the meeting to be "most harmful" to his claim.

The ALJ issued an Order denying the Petitioner’s petition.

Select all sources

No emoji found

23F-H031-REL

3 sources

These sources document a legal dispute between Clifford S. Burnes and the Saguaro Crest Homeowners’ Association regarding an alleged violation of community bylaws. The conflict centers on a December 2021 annual meeting where the association voted to dissolve the organization but did not hold new elections for its leadership. Burnes argued that Article 2.1 of the bylaws mandated an election, while the association maintained that the dissolution vote rendered new elections unnecessary. An administrative hearing transcript captures the testimony of both parties, highlighting disagreements over meeting procedures and the legal interpretation of governing documents. Ultimately, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of the association, concluding that no mandatory election requirement was violated. The final decision emphasizes that the petitioner failed to object during the meeting and did not meet the burden of proof for his claims.

What are the legal arguments for and against dissolving the HOA?

How did the judge interpret the ‘purpose’ of the annual meeting?

Explain the role of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.

Thursday, February 12

Save to note

Today • 2:17 PM

Video Overview

Mind Map

Reports

Flashcards

Quiz

Infographic

Slide Deck

Data Table

Select all sources

No emoji found

23F-H031-REL

3 sources

What are the legal arguments for and against dissolving the HOA?

How did the judge interpret the ‘purpose’ of the annual meeting?

Explain the role of the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings.

Thursday, February 12

Save to note

Today • 2:17 PM

Video Overview

Mind Map

Reports

Flashcards

Quiz

Infographic

Slide Deck

Data Table

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Clifford S. Burnes (petitioner)
Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Member
Also referred to as Clifford (Norm) Burnes.

Respondent Side

John T. Crotty (HOA attorney)
Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Esmerina Martinez (board member)
Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
President; referred to as Serena Martinez or Esmerelda Martinez in sources.
Dave Madill (board member)
Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association
Vice President; referred to as Dave Matt or Dave Mel in testimony.
Joseph Martinez (board member)
Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association

Neutral Parties

Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
OAH
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official transmittal.
vnunez (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official transmittal.
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official transmittal.
labril (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of official transmittal.

Elizabeth, Flint v. Citation Gardens Cooperative #1

Posted on April 4, 2023 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	23F-H026-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2023-04-04
Administrative Law Judge	Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome	The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Respondent, Citation Gardens Cooperative #1, does not meet the statutory definition of a planned community, and therefore, the statute prohibiting the denial of solar panels (A.R.S. § 33-1816) does not apply.
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Elizabeth Flint	Counsel	—
Respondent	Citation Gardens Cooperative #1	Counsel	Andrew Vizcarra

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1816(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Respondent, Citation Gardens Cooperative #1, does not meet the statutory definition of a planned community, and therefore, the statute prohibiting the denial of solar panels (A.R.S. § 33-1816) does not apply.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1816, as the ALJ determined a cooperative's purposes and functions are separate and distinct from those of a planned community, excluding it from the planned community definition.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of request to install solar panels

Petitioner alleged Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1816(A) by prohibiting the installation of a solar energy device, arguing the Cooperative qualifies as a planned community. Respondent argued it was a Cooperative Corporation, not a planned community, and the statute did not apply.

Orders: No action is required of Respondent in this matter, and the petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

A.R.S. § 33-1816
A.R.S. § 33-1802
A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Solar Energy Device, Planned Community Definition, Cooperative Housing, Statutory Applicability, Burden of Proof

Additional Citations:

A.R.S. § 33-1816
A.R.S. § 33-1802
A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H026-REL Decision – 1030738.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:00:13 (53.2 KB)

23F-H026-REL Decision – 1046844.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:00:22 (104.2 KB)

23F-H026-REL Decision – 1030738.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:11 (53.2 KB)

23F-H026-REL Decision – 1046844.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:53:15 (104.2 KB)

This summary outlines the proceedings, key arguments, and final decision in the matter of *Elizabeth Flint v. Citation Gardens Cooperative #1*, Docket No. 23F-H026-REL.

Key Facts and Hearing Proceedings

The hearing was held on March 21, 2023, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sondra J. Vanella of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Petitioner Elizabeth Flint appeared on her own behalf, but Respondent Citation Gardens Cooperative #1 did not appear. Respondent's representative, Andrew Vizcarra, informed the Petitioner via email prior to the hearing that he would miss the meeting due to his son's illness, did not wish to reschedule, and asked that the documents Respondent had submitted "stand in his place". The hearing proceeded in Respondent’s absence, with the Petitioner bearing the burden of proof to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Main Issue and Legal Arguments

The single-issue petition alleged that Citation Gardens Cooperative #1 violated A.R.S. § 33-1816(A) by denying the Petitioner’s request to install solar panels on her townhouse without providing reasons. A.R.S. § 33-1816(A) mandates that a planned community association "shall not prohibit the installation or use of a solar energy device," notwithstanding any contrary provision in the community documents.

Respondent's Position (as submitted): The statute (A.R.S. § 33-1816(A)) did not apply because the Cooperative argued it is governed solely by the Arizona Non-Profit Corporation Act, is not a "planned community," and the Petitioner is a "Member," not a "homeowner".

Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner maintained that the Cooperative meets the statutory definition of a planned community (A.R.S. § 33-1802). She argued that a planned community and a nonprofit corporation are not mutually exclusive classifications, noting that the statutory definition for a planned community specifically references a "nonprofit corporation". Furthermore, she asserted that she is both a member and an owner/shareholder (owning 1/44th of the corporation). Since the Respondent did not fall into any of the statutory exclusions for a planned community (timeshare, condominium, or real estate development not managed by an association), the Cooperative must comply with the solar panel statute.

Outcome and Legal Decision

The ALJ issued the Administrative Law Judge Decision on April 4, 2023.

The central legal point was whether the Cooperative qualified as a planned community under A.R.S. § 33-1802. The ALJ acknowledged that the definition of a planned community requires the existence of a nonprofit corporation to own and operate the real estate. However, the ALJ concluded that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community because their "purposes and functions are separate and distinct," despite the statutory definition not expressly excluding cooperatives.

As the Respondent was not found to be a planned community, the Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1816.

The final order was that the petition is dismissed, and no action is required of the Respondent.

Questions

Question

Does the Arizona law protecting a homeowner's right to install solar panels apply to housing cooperatives?

Short Answer

No. The ALJ ruled that housing cooperatives do not fit the legal definition of a 'planned community,' so the solar protection statute (A.R.S. § 33-1816) does not apply to them.

Detailed Answer

In this case, a member of a cooperative sought to install solar panels, citing A.R.S. § 33-1816, which prevents planned communities from prohibiting solar devices. The judge determined that while the definition of a planned community does not explicitly list cooperatives as an exclusion, the nature and purpose of a cooperative are distinct enough that they do not fall under the planned community statutes. Therefore, the cooperative was not legally required to permit the installation.

Alj Quote

Although the definition of a planned community does not expressly exclude a cooperative, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community, as their purposes and functions are separate and distinct.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1802; A.R.S. § 33-1816

Topic Tags

solar panels
cooperatives
planned community definition

Question

What happens if the HOA or respondent fails to attend the administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The hearing proceeds without them.

Detailed Answer

If the respondent (the HOA or Cooperative) has been properly notified of the hearing time and date but fails to appear or request a continuance, the Administrative Law Judge will conduct the hearing in their absence. The petitioner will still present their case, but the respondent loses the opportunity to defend themselves in person.

Alj Quote

Consequently, given that Respondent was properly noticed of the hearing, the hearing proceeded in Respondent’s absence.

Legal Basis

Procedural Due Process

Topic Tags

hearing procedure
attendance
default

Question

Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute?

Short Answer

The petitioner (typically the homeowner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

The person bringing the complaint must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims. It is not up to the HOA to disprove the claims initially; the homeowner must affirmatively establish that the HOA violated the governing documents or statutes.

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

burden of proof
legal standards

Question

Is a housing cooperative considered a 'planned community' under Arizona law?

Short Answer

No, a cooperative is legally distinct from a planned community.

Detailed Answer

The decision clarifies that a planned community generally involves real estate owned/operated by a nonprofit where owners are mandatory members. A cooperative, however, is formed to acquire, own, and operate a housing project where members hold shares. The judge ruled that these are separate legal concepts with different purposes, meaning statutes specific to 'planned communities' do not automatically apply to cooperatives.

Alj Quote

Respondent is a nonprofit corporation that was formed for the purpose of acquiring, owning and operating a cooperative housing project… the Administrative Law Judge concludes that a cooperative does not fall within the definition of a planned community…

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1802

Topic Tags

definitions
cooperatives
planned community

Question

What is the standard of evidence required to win a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

To win, the evidence must show that the claim is 'more probably true than not.' This is a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases. It means the evidence must incline a fair mind to one side even slightly more than the other.

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Common Law / A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

evidence
legal standards

Case

Docket No: 23F-H026-REL
Case Title: Elizabeth Flint v. Citation Gardens Cooperative #1
Decision Date: 2023-04-04
Alj Name: Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Questions

Question

Does the Arizona law protecting a homeowner's right to install solar panels apply to housing cooperatives?

Short Answer

No. The ALJ ruled that housing cooperatives do not fit the legal definition of a 'planned community,' so the solar protection statute (A.R.S. § 33-1816) does not apply to them.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1802; A.R.S. § 33-1816

Topic Tags

solar panels
cooperatives
planned community definition

Question

What happens if the HOA or respondent fails to attend the administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The hearing proceeds without them.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Consequently, given that Respondent was properly noticed of the hearing, the hearing proceeded in Respondent’s absence.

Legal Basis

Procedural Due Process

Topic Tags

hearing procedure
attendance
default

Question

Who is responsible for proving that a violation occurred in an HOA dispute?

Short Answer

The petitioner (typically the homeowner) bears the burden of proof.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that Respondent violated applicable statutes, CC&Rs, and/or Bylaws by a preponderance of the evidence.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)

Topic Tags

burden of proof
legal standards

Question

Is a housing cooperative considered a 'planned community' under Arizona law?

Short Answer

No, a cooperative is legally distinct from a planned community.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 33-1802

Topic Tags

definitions
cooperatives
planned community

Question

What is the standard of evidence required to win a hearing against an HOA?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

Alj Quote

A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.

Legal Basis

Common Law / A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

evidence
legal standards

Case

Docket No: 23F-H026-REL
Case Title: Elizabeth Flint v. Citation Gardens Cooperative #1
Decision Date: 2023-04-04
Alj Name: Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal: OAH
Agency: ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Elizabeth Flint (petitioner)
Appeared on her own behalf and testified.

Respondent Side

Andrew Vizcarra (respondent representative)
Tucson Realty & Trust Co. Management Services, L.L.C.
Did not appear at the hearing; also referenced verbally as 'Andrew Biscara'.

Neutral Parties

Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings

Other Participants

James Knupp (Acting Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed on the service list for the Order Setting Hearing dated Feb 2, 2023.
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed on the service list for the Decision dated April 4, 2023.
AHansen (ADRE Staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of case documents via email address.
vnunez (ADRE Staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of case documents via email address.
djones (ADRE Staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of case documents via email address.
labril (ADRE Staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of case documents via email address.